The Twins need to sign Liriano to a 2-3 year contract ASAP

[DaveW]

There is 0 chance the Twins pick up Bakers 9 mil option, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing him back on a heavy incentive based deal, but the Twins shouldn't count on him being an answer to the rotation for the full season.

[TheLeviathan]

Expecting Liriano to take a team friendly number of years AND team friendly guaranteed money is a pipedream. Realistically dealing him is the best.

[70charger]

I am well aware of the Quality start stat, champ. It blows my mind that people use Wikipedia for sports information....

Also if you would read the orginal message it's pretty obvious I'm not the one who said it was 5 innings/3ER, I was quoting someone else who said it. That user wrote that Bert said 5 IP/3ER.

 

Regarless the Quality Start is not the end all/be all in determining a pitcher's effectiveness. It is much better then wins/losses though.

Isn't it ironic that you assume that I'd go to wikipedia to look this up (I didn't, I was citing it for your reference) when you relied on a thirdhand source for your definition?

[DaveW]

Isn't it ironic that you assume that I'd go to wikipedia to look this up (I didn't, I was citing it for your reference) when you relied on a thirdhand source for your definition?

I knew, and know exactly what a quality start is. It was the poster before me who was trying to make a point of what Bert said (or didn't say?) He said "Bert says 5 IP and 3ER is what he (bert) considers a quality start"

 

Anyways, what exactly is your point again? Are you contributing to this thread at all or just wanting to argue semantics of another post that has little to do with the subject?

 

Also FWIW you were the one posting links to wikipedia, not I. All I did was respond to another poster and my thought that I'd rather have a pitcher that gives you 7/8 IP and 4 ER rather than 5 and 3 ER. Hell give me the 8 IP 4 ER over the 6 IP 3 ER guy 8 days a week.

[DaveW]

Expecting Liriano to take a team friendly number of years AND team friendly guaranteed money is a pipedream. Realistically dealing him is the best.

Is 3/30 really that team friendly? Do you think teams are going to be offering him 4+ years and more than 10-12 million a year in free agency?

[TheLeviathan]

Is 3/30 really that team friendly? Do you think teams are going to be offering him 4+ years and more than 10-12 million a year in free agency?

Pavano got 2 years and 17M. I would say your proposal of 2/20 seems mighty team friendly.

[Top Gun]

I would go 2/30 with a team option.

[DaveW]

Pavano got 2 years and 17M. I would say your proposal of 2/20 seems mighty team friendly.

I said I would prefer 2/20 (of course I would!) But threw out 3/30 and asked if that is to friendly? 3/33? I'd be fine with that as well. I just can't see a team giving him much more than 3/36 on the FA market. and if the Twins offer 3/30 now maybe he takes it due to the whole security thing/not risk FA market or a potential injury/regression etc etc?

 

Also he mentioned he likes it here and wants to stay here, so that has to at least help a tiny bit?

 

I can't imagine him succeeding in a large market to be honest, you think fans are tough on him in Minnesota? Just wait until he has one bad start in NY or BOS.

[TheLeviathan]

I do think he'd sign here for the right price - but what reason does he have to take less money? Part of the argument people are floating out is that 3/30 is team friendly and therefore below market. I don't know what the market would yield for him, but I know I wouldn't guarantee him anywhere close to 30M.

 

And, on top of that, you can't use reasoning like his success in a large market to justify your contract speculation. Liriano doesn't have to think that and probably won't. He also doesn't have to acknowledge he has sucked for 2 of the last three years. He doesn't have to recognize his ERA+ is still 85. He doesn't have to think anything that we as fans include in the topic.

[BrentMpls]

I was quoting someone else who said it. That user wrote that Bert said 5 IP/3ER.

 

 

Correct - he said that on air just before his most recent break, I don't remember the exact game, it was within the last few weeks. He said it with some disdain, as if he didn't agree fully phrasing it something like "How a quality start is defined in today's game is 5 innings and 3 runs or less". And he did say 5 and 3, not 6.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

Liriano loves it in Minnesota. http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_21129086/charley-walters-twins-francisco-liriano-loves-it-minnesota?source=most_viewed

 

I think the Twins have a very good chance to extend or re-sign Liriano to a new contract. It's really the front office's decision, not Frankie.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Liriano loves it in Minnesota. http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_21129086/charley-walters-twins-francisco-liriano-loves-it-minnesota?source=most_viewed

 

I think the Twins have a very good chance to extend or re-sign Liriano to a new contract. It's really the front office's decision, not Frankie.

 

which is exactly what he should say, whether it's true or not... I'd imagine that the Twins have already had the long term contract extension with him and as soon as actual numbers were passed around, the conversation ended.

[Oxtung]

I was having a very OT discussion on the Sano thread and so am moving that discussion here where it is relevant.

 

Advanced metrics tell a different story. Also Morneau is 6/80, a far cry from 3/30.

You mean that Morneau has been payed $30 million over the last 2 years to post a -1 WAR? Any time you sign a player to a long term contract you are taking a risk. The more money and more years the larger the risk. As much as you want to deny it signing a below average pitcher, which Liriano has been, to a long term contract for ~10% of your team salary is a big risk.

 

Of the players you listed before, all would command 3/30 or more with no chance of putting together seasons comparable to liriano circa 2006 or 2010. Yes, Liriano is inconsistent but at 3/30 it would not be an albatross and could easily return a surplus value, where as a deal for Hamels / Greinke who would command something like 5 / 140 or more and very quickly turn into an albatross.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this...you just said that Greinke, who has a Cy Young award, couldn't match Liriano's 2010 season? I would have to look into it but I would guess that atleast 5 players on that list have at least 1 year that is equal to Liriano's 2010. On top of that everyone of those players hasn't been Liriano circa 2009, 2011, 2012. If you don't think 3/30 can turn into an albatross you must love Blackburn.

[Willihammer]

You mean that Morneau has been payed $30 million over the last 2 years to post a -1 WAR? Any time you sign a player to a long term contract you are taking a risk. The more money and more years the larger the risk. As much as you want to deny it signing a below average pitcher, which Liriano has been, to a long term contract for ~10% of your team salary is a big risk.

How can you in one breath mention Hamels, Greinke, , et al and in the next talk about Liriano salary risk? Are we not agreed that 3/30 is expectacted for Liriano, or not? Such price pales in comparison to risk involved with extensions the other group will get (with exceptions - see Sano thread reply# 38).

I'm not even sure how to respond to this...you just said that Greinke, who has a Cy Young award, couldn't match Liriano's 2010 season? I would have to look into it but I would guess that atleast 5 players on that list have at least 1 year that is equal to Liriano's 2010. On top of that everyone of those players hasn't been Liriano circa 2009, 2011, 2012. If you don't think 3/30 can turn into an albatross you must love Blackburn.

I was speaking in terms of win-return/$ but wasn't clear. At 3/30 Liriano presents a higher possible win return on the dollar compared to Greinke or Hamels who because of consistent track records will net lucrative contract/extensions and therefore return a lower value, somewhere between $9.33 and 4.66 / win, whereas Liriano at 3/30 can expect a floor of about $5m/win at 2 wins/season (fangraphs WAR) and a ceiling of $2m/win (5 wins/season).

 

Ah, I am using fangraphs WAR and you are using bb-ref WAR. That is a separate depate. Suffice, you extricate the stat suiting your argument and I for mine. In such case the "albatross" risk defaults to the higher gross investment. Blackburn is a disappointment, not an albatross. If to sign and albatross Greinke or Hamels now, then the the SP+Mauer handcuffs the Twins when Sano reaches MLb and all is for naught.

 

Final thought: Velocity has a negative correlation with paycheck. In other words, peak velocity occurs before free agency. With peak velocity comes peak strikeouts - around age 28. Another argument in the corner of Hernandez/Price.

[Willihammer]

Liriano loves it in Minnesota. http://www.twincities.com/twins/ci_21129086/charley-walters-twins-francisco-liriano-loves-it-minnesota?source=most_viewed I think the Twins have a very good chance to extend or re-sign Liriano to a new contract. It's really the front office's decision, not Frankie.

This is good news.

 

1. The Twins need pitching anyway. Home discount would be welcome.

2. Other clubs are showing hesitant to pull the trade trigger - forecasting a down free agency market on him.

3. Heavy reliance on the slider, instead of fastball = greater success in post-peak years. Slightly less vulnerability to declining fastball velocity that is inevitable with age.

 

No proof that other lucrative FAs are even open to a MN offer, esp. NL FA's. If they are open -minded, some probability they will only sign here at a premium. No premium with Liriano as he likes to stay here.

[notoriousgod71]

Liriano's HR/9 is fine. He's top 30 in MLB at .8/9. That's not a home run derby.

 

I would much rather have what Blackburn did last night too, but unfortunately we don't have anyone who can do that on a regular basis so Liriano is still better.

 

Come next year when we have a rotation of Blackburn, DeVries, Diamond, Walters, and Gibson/Baker/whoever we are all going to be bitching about not having a strikeout pitcher and how we should have kept Liriano.

Well, that was predictable...

 

 

I STAND BY MY COMMENTS!

[IdahoPilgrim]

This is good news.

 

1. The Twins need pitching anyway. Home discount would be welcome.

2. Other clubs are showing hesitant to pull the trade trigger - forecasting a down free agency market on him.

3. Heavy reliance on the slider, instead of fastball = greater success in post-peak years. Slightly less vulnerability to declining fastball velocity that is inevitable with age.

 

No proof that other lucrative FAs are even open to a MN offer, esp. NL FA's. If they are open -minded, some probability they will only sign here at a premium. No premium with Liriano as he likes to stay here.

Not necessarily. They might be put off by the new CBA and the fact that he is eligible for free agency this year. Why give up anything for him and chance he signs with someone else and end up losing a prospect and not even getting a draft pick in return when you can wait yourself and try to sign him as a FA during the off-season? The only people who might consider a trade are those in contention. After the season, anybody can make a play for him for no cost.

[DaveW]

Son of a bitch.

[Oxtung]

How can you in one breath mention Hamels, Greinke, , et al and in the next talk about Liriano salary risk? Are we not agreed that 3/30 is expectacted for Liriano, or not? Such price pales in comparison to risk involved with extensions the other group will get (with exceptions - see Sano thread reply# 38). I was speaking in terms of win-return/$ but wasn't clear. At 3/30 Liriano presents a higher possible win return on the dollar compared to Greinke or Hamels who because of consistent track records will net lucrative contract/extensions and therefore return a lower value, somewhere between $9.33 and 4.66 / win, whereas Liriano at 3/30 can expect a floor of about $5m/win at 2 wins/season (fangraphs WAR) and a ceiling of $2m/win (5 wins/season).

 

Ah, I am using fangraphs WAR and you are using bb-ref WAR. That is a separate depate. Suffice, you extricate the stat suiting your argument and I for mine. In such case the "albatross" risk defaults to the higher gross investment. Blackburn is a disappointment, not an albatross. If to sign and albatross Greinke or Hamels now, then the the SP+Mauer handcuffs the Twins when Sano reaches MLb and all is for naught.

 

Final thought: Velocity has a negative correlation with paycheck. In other words, peak velocity occurs before free agency. With peak velocity comes peak strikeouts - around age 28. Another argument in the corner of Hernandez/Price.

You have misunderstood my posts or made assumptions about my opinions. Let me try to recap what was said and why I responded the way I did.

 

You started by saying there weren't many FA SP's this year. To which I responded with a list of ~10 pitchers who are FA's and have been better pitchers than Liriano.

 

You next claimed 3years/$30M contract for Liriano was low risk. I said that anytime you commit ~10% of your salary to one player that is not low risk. When that player is a below average player that becomes a high risk contract.

 

You finally claimed that even if Liriano was bad the 3/30 contract would not be an albatross to which I said you must like the Blackburn deal then. You also said that the Liriano contract would be a safer bet than a Hamels or Greinke contract.

 

Now let me try and clarify my position because I think you've made some bad assumptions. I don't favor a long term high $$ contract for Greinke or Hamels. I agree this would handcuff the Twins long term. I only included them in the list because you said there weren't good pitchers out there. I DO think signing 1-2 pitchers in the second tier for 3-4 years for $30-60M each, depending on the particulars, is the way to proceed. I don't think the Twins should resign Liriano because he hasn't been even an average pitcher unless he comes very cheap or it's a 1 year deal. You have to mitigate his risk. 3/30 for Liriano is high risk.

 

I don't care if you use BBRef or Fangraphs for WAR. The only reason I brought up Morneau was to show that any long term contract is a risk.

[Willihammer]

Not necessarily. They might be put off by the new CBA and the fact that he is eligible for free agency this year. Why give up anything for him and chance he signs with someone else and end up losing a prospect and not even getting a draft pick in return when you can wait yourself and try to sign him as a FA during the off-season? The only people who might consider a trade are those in contention. After the season, anybody can make a play for him for no cost.

As I understand it, the only team to lose a draft pick would be a signer who takes him and isn't in line for a protected pick (ie. top 15). The Twins should not lose a 1st round pick in any scenario, as I understand it.

[stringer bell]

Liriano has great stuff, but he has a very difficult time staying mechanically sound. On the topic at hand, he needs to go, not because of tonight, but because he has too many nights like this. I hope the Twins find a trade partner that makes sense.

[Willihammer]

You have misunderstood my posts or made assumptions about my opinions.

You're framing this in an interesting way, but only interesting to me since I think all previously interested parties have long since wandered on.

 

I have always spoken in terms of value added per dollar spent. If I had spoken of gross value then I wouldn't have stipulated Sano as trade bait in the first place, obviously. See "Trade Sano" Post# 1. As a stipulation, if the Twin retain Liriano, then they are virtually encumbered therewith to sign a free agent as per their de facto all-in posturing for 2013. Owing to the fact that (presumable SP free agents you mentioned) are all or 1 of: 1. old and declining and 2. overpriced relative to Price/Hernandez (and to a lesser extent, Buehrle and Lee), 3. unproven in the AL, 4. injurious history, then a better move may be to take the better, younger pitcher under 2+ years of control at the lower immediate price of a A level prospect (albeit a top level prospect).

 

You, sir, retorted by cherry picking statistics from 2008, all of which are validated by fangraphs WAR, and none of which are validated by rWAR (bb-ref), thus I assumed bb-ref. But I am done quibbling. The fact is, if we can't even agree on a common formula for Wins then there is little to quibble about anyway. BB-ref and Fangraphs tell very different strories about Liriano. I assume you are familiar with both, and can understand my conclusion here. If not, then please reference fangraphs.com and search for WAR. Pitcher WAR is more heavily dependent on FIP and less dependent on park factor (obviously park factor is less meaningful in a park that is not even 3 years old).

[skraft33]

As I understand it, the only team to lose a draft pick would be a signer who takes him and isn't in line for a protected pick (ie. top 15). The Twins should not lose a 1st round pick in any scenario, as I understand it.

I believe the rule was amended in the previous CBA so that only picks in the top-10 are protected

[Willihammer]

I believe the rule was amended in the previous CBA so that only picks in the top-10 are protected

It is the top 15 for the 2013 draft, I belive.

[TheLeviathan]

As a stipulation, if the Twin retain Liriano, then they are virtually encumbered therewith to sign a free agent as per their de facto all-in posturing for 2013.

You realize just about half of this sentence is pure, unnecessary gibberish right?

[Oxtung]

You're framing this in an interesting way, but only interesting to me since I think all previously interested parties have long since wandered on.

 

I have always spoken in terms of value added per dollar spent. If I had spoken of gross value then I wouldn't have stipulated Sano as trade bait in the first place, obviously. See "Trade Sano" Post# 1. As a stipulation, if the Twin retain Liriano, then they are virtually encumbered therewith to sign a free agent as per their de facto all-in posturing for 2013. Owing to the fact that (presumable SP free agents you mentioned) are all or 1 of: 1. old and declining and 2. overpriced relative to Price/Hernandez (and to a lesser extent, Buehrle and Lee), 3. unproven in the AL, 4. injurious history, then a better move may be to take the better, younger pitcher under 2+ years of control at the lower immediate price of a A level prospect (albeit a top level prospect).

 

You, sir, retorted by cherry picking statistics from 2008, all of which are validated by fangraphs WAR, and none of which are validated by rWAR (bb-ref), thus I assumed bb-ref. But I am done quibbling. The fact is, if we can't even agree on a common formula for Wins then there is little to quibble about anyway. BB-ref and Fangraphs tell very different strories about Liriano. I assume you are familiar with both, and can understand my conclusion here. If not, then please reference fangraphs.com and search for WAR. Pitcher WAR is more heavily dependent on FIP and less dependent on park factor (obviously park factor is less meaningful in a park that is not even 3 years old).

Now you just seem to be making things up. The only statistic I mentioned in this discussion was in reference to Morneau and it was tangentially related to my main point. So there is no way I cherry picked anything. I am ready to be done with this discussion. I'll reiterate my points one last time in the vain hope that you understand.

 

1) There are many good free agent starting pitchers available this year.

 

2) Resigning Liriano to any contract longer than 1 year is a risk. The longer and more money involved the riskier it is. Liriano has been a below average pitcher. 3/30 is a risky contract for Liriano.

 

Those have been the points of my posts. Nothing else.

[Willihammer]

1) There are many good free agent starting pitchers available this year. In absolute terms, ther are few FAs better th an Liriano. Even fewer, in relative terms.

2) Resigning Liriano to any contract longer than 1 year is a risk. The longer and more money involved the riskier it is. Liriano has been a below average pitcher. 3/30 is a risky contract for Liriano. Those have been the points of my posts. Nothing else.

Then why previously did you mention Marcum, Jackson, &Sanchez? Nevermind, get back to me after the deadline. Like K. Williams, I think instead of you wanting to rebuild or reload you'd waffle as the ChiSox cca 2011-2012.

[Oxtung]

Then why previously did you mention Marcum, Jackson, &Sanchez? Nevermind, get back to me after the deadline. Like K. Williams, I think instead of you wanting to rebuild or reload you'd waffle as the ChiSox cca 2011-2012.

Do you even read my posts? Am I a fish on the line? Are you just trolling? Somebody save me here. Anybody have a needle nosed pliers?

[IdahoPilgrim]

As I understand it, the only team to lose a draft pick would be a signer who takes him and isn't in line for a protected pick (ie. top 15). The Twins should not lose a 1st round pick in any scenario, as I understand it.

Correct. My point was that, if somebody was to trade for him and then he didn't sign an extension and went to a third team in free agency, the team who traded for him would not get a draft pick in compensation (as in the previous CBA) and would have effectively given away a prospect for a two month rental. Only a contender would do that, whereas after the season is up, anybody can throw their hat in the ring.

[Willihammer]

Correct. My point was that, if somebody was to trade for him and then he didn't sign an extension and went to a third team in free agency, the team who traded for him would not get a draft pick in compensation (as in the previous CBA) and would have effectively given away a prospect for a two month rental. Only a contender would do that, whereas after the season is up, anybody can throw their hat in the ring.

Maybe the better move, if the Twins are heck bent on dumping Liriano, is to sign and then shop, so as to provoke a bidding war amongst teams with unprotected picks ie. contenders.